Diversity awareness, diversity competency and access to healthcare for minority groups: perspectives of healthcare professionals in Croatia, Germany, Poland, and Slovenia.

Introduction: Due to cultural, language, or legal barriers, members of social minority groups face challenges in access to healthcare. Equality of healthcare provision can be achieved through raised diversity awareness and diversity competency of healthcare professionals. The aim of this research was to explore the experiences and attitudes of healthcare professionals toward the issue of social diversity and equal access to healthcare in Croatia, Germany, Poland, and Slovenia. Methods: The data reported come from semi-structured interviews with n = 39 healthcare professionals. The interviews were analyzed using the methods of content analysis and thematic analysis. Results: Respondents in all four countries acknowledged that socioeconomic factors and membership in a minority group have an impact on access to healthcare services, but its scope varies depending on the country. Underfunding of healthcare, language barriers, inadequate cultural training or lack of interpersonal competencies, and lack of institutional support were presented as major challenges in the provision of diversity-responsive healthcare. The majority of interviewees did not perceive direct systemic exclusion of minority groups; however, they reported cases of individual discrimination through the presence of homophobia or racism. Discussion: To improve the situation, systemic interventions are needed that encompass all levels of healthcare systems - from policies to addressing existing challenges at the healthcare facility level to improving the attitudes and skills of individual healthcare providers.

The ethical significance of consent to postmortem organ retrieval.

Supporters of opt-in organ procurement policies typically claim that the absence of consent to postmortem transplantable organ retrieval is a normative barrier to such retrieval. On this ground, justification of opt-out policies is demanded. The paper shows that postmortem organ retrieval is normatively different from live organ removal, and so the doctrine of informed consent does not apply to it in the way it does in other types of cases. First, seen as the instrument of protection of autonomy or the right to self-determination, informed consent cannot be relied on in the case of dead persons; secondly, viewed as an instrument of annulment of harm or wrong to the dead (volenti non fit injuria), informed consent relies on indefensible accounts of posthumous harm or wrong. Postmortem organ retrieval in cases of absence of the decedent's consent and refusal is governed by other norms than those related to consent. Such norms include, among others, respectful treatment of human remains (such as those found in regulations of medicine, law enforcement, and research) and avoidance of inherently wrong contexts and purposes (such as killing for the purpose of organ retrieval or trade in the human body or its parts). It is concluded that the onus probandi is on the supporters of opt-in, rather than opt-out, policies of posthumous organ retrieval.

Solidarity and the ethics of exposing others to risk in medical research.

The ethical justifiability of the invitation of others to participate in research and their deliberate exposure to risks of harm is not a common topic in bioethics. If, however, some offers ought not to be made and the corresponding actions ought not to be facilitated, invitations to, and the conduct of, a medical study involving humans needs justification. This paper addresses this issue by linking the search for medical knowledge with solidarity. The argument begins with the observation that scientific research is aimed at general knowledge, which is a necessary condition of the social value of research. The applicability of this knowledge to many makes it potentially a public good; that is, a good that is available freely to all. For knowledge to be a public good, a social decision to make it freely available to all needs to be made. It is proposed that this decision be grounded in society's, and so in both researchers' and potential research participants', commitment to solidarity and its obligations of provision, sharing, support, and loyalty. These obligations imply, among other things, an imperfect obligation to participate in research and the corresponding entitlement of the investigators to invite others to participate in research, and so to expose them to its risks during implementation. This entitlement is exercised in an environment shaped by the standards and protections of research ethics and the relevant institutional arrangements.

Equal access to healthcare in national legislations: how do Croatia, Germany, Poland, and Slovenia counteract discrimination in healthcare?

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was a comparative analysis of legislative measures against discrimination in healthcare on the grounds of a) race and ethnicity, b) religion and belief, and c) gender identity and sexual orientation in Croatia, Germany, Poland and Slovenia. METHODS: We conducted a search for documents in national legal databases and reviewed legal commentaries, scientific literature and official reports of equality bodies. We integrated a comparative method with text analysis and the critical interpretive approach. The documents were examined in their original languages: Croatian, German, Polish, and Slovenian. RESULTS: All examined states prohibit discrimination and guarantee the right to healthcare on the constitutional level. However, there are significant differences among them on the statutory level, regarding both anti-discriminatory legal measures and other legislation affecting access to healthcare for groups of diverse race or ethnicity, religion or belief, sexual orientation or gender identity. Croatia and Slovenia show the most comprehensive legislation concerning non-discrimination in healthcare in comparison to Germany and even more Poland. Except for Slovenia, explicit provisions protecting equal access for members of the abovementioned groups are insufficiently represented in healthcare legislation. CONCLUSIONS: The study identified legislative barriers to access to healthcare for persons of diverse race or ethnicity, religion or belief, sexual orientation or gender identity in Croatia, Germany, Poland and Slovenia. The discrepancies in the level of implementation of anti-discriminatory measures among these states show that there is a need for comprehensive EU-wide regulations, which would implement the principle of equal treatment in the specific context of healthcare. General anti-discrimination regulations should be strengthened by inclusion of anti-discrimination provisions directly into national legislation relating specifically to the area of healthcare.

Diversity Competency and Access to Healthcare in Hospitals in Croatia, Germany, Poland, and Slovenia.

Diversity competency is an approach for improving access to healthcare for members of minority groups. It includes a commitment to institutional policies and practices aimed at the improvement of the relationship between patients and healthcare professionals. The aim of this research is to investigate whether and how such a commitment is included in internal documents of hospitals in Croatia, Germany, Poland, and Slovenia. Using the methods of documentary research and thematic analysis we examined internal documents received from hospitals in these countries. In all four countries, the documents concentrate on general statements prohibiting discrimination with regard to healthcare provision. Specific regulations concerning ethnicity and culture focus on the issue of language barriers. With regard to religious practices, the documents from Croatia, Poland, and Slovenia focus on dominant religious groups. Observance of other religious practices and customs is rarely addressed. Healthcare needs of patients with non-heteronormative sexual orientation, intersexual, and transgender patients are explicitly addressed in only a few internal documents. Diversity competency policies are not comprehensively implemented in hospital internal regulations in hospitals under investigation. There is a need for the development and implementation of comprehensive policies in hospitals aiming at the specific needs of minority groups.

Social diversity and access to healthcare in Europe: how does European Union's legislation prevent from discrimination in healthcare?

BACKGROUND: Social diversity can affect healthcare outcomes in situations when access to healthcare is limited for specific groups. Although the principle of equality is one of the central topics on the agenda of the European Union (EU), its scope in the field of healthcare, however, is relatively unexplored. The aim of this study is to identify and systematically analyze primary and secondary legislation of the EU Institutions that concern the issue of access to healthcare for various minority groups. In our research, we have concentrated on three features of diversity: a) gender identity and sexual orientation, b) race and ethnicity, and c) religion or belief. METHOD AND MATERIALS: For the purpose of this analysis, we conducted a search of database Eur-Lex, the official website of European Union law and other public documents of the European Union, based on specific keywords accompanied by review of secondary literature. Relevant documents were examined with regard to the research topic. Our search covered documents that were in force between 13 December 2007 and 31 July 2019. RESULTS: Generally, the EU legal system prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion or belief, racial or ethnic origin, sex, and sexual orientation. However, with regard to the issue of non-discrimination in access to healthcare EU secondary law provides protection against discrimination only on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin and sex. The issue of discrimination in healthcare on the grounds of religion or belief, gender identity and sexual orientation is not specifically addressed under EU secondary law. DISCUSSION: The absence of regulations regarding non-discrimination in the EU secondary law in the area of healthcare may result from the division of competences between the European Union and the Member States. Reluctance of the Member States to adopt comprehensive antidiscrimination regulations leads to a situation, in which protection in access to healthcare primarily depends on national regulations. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that EU antidiscriminatory law with regard to access to healthcare is fragmentary. Prohibition of discrimination of the level of European binding law does not fully encompass all aspects of social diversity.

Pure Altruistic Gift and the Ethics of Transplant Medicine.

The article argues that altruistic giving based on anonymity, which is expected to promote social solidarity and block trade in human body parts, is conceptually defective and practically unproductive. It needs to be replaced by a more adequate notion which responds to the human practices of giving and receiving. The argument starts with identification of the main characteristics of the anonymous altruistic donation: social separation of the organ donor (or donor family) from the recipient, their mutual replaceability, non-obligatoriness of donation, and non-obligatoriness of reciprocation on the recipient's part. Since these characteristics are also central to typical market relations, anonymous altruistic donation not only cannot promote solidarity but may encourage proposals for (regulated) markets of transplantable organs. Thus, transplant ethics needs to be reframed. It needs to be rooted in, rather than promote, the practices of giving and receiving known to human societies. As the basis for such reframing, the idea of sharing in another's misfortune is proposed. It relies on the human practices of giving and receiving and, with appropriate regulatory safeguards, can provide a better conceptual basis for blocking commercial exchanges of human body parts.

Leaving gift-giving behind: the ethical status of the human body and transplant medicine.

The paper argues that the idea of gift-giving and its associated imagery, which has been founding the ethics of organ transplants since the time of the first successful transplants, should be abandoned because it cannot effectively block arguments for (regulated) markets in human body parts. The imagery suggests that human bodies or their parts are transferable objects which belong to individuals. Such imagery is, however, neither a self-evident nor anthropologically unproblematic construal of the relation between a human being and their body. The paper proposes an alternative conceptualization of that relation, the identity view according to which a human being is identical with their living body. This view, which offers a new ethical perspective on some central concepts of transplant medicine and its ethical and legal standards and institutions, supports widely shared intuitive ethical judgments. On this proposal, an act of selling a human body or one of its parts is an act of trade in human beings, not in owned objects. Transfers of human body parts for treatment purposes are to be seen as sharing in another human being's misfortune rather than as giving owned objects. From the perspective of policy-making, the proposal requires, first, that informed consent for removal of transplant material be obtained from the potential benefactor. Secondly, explicit consent by the prospective benefactor is obligatory in the case of removal of transplant material from a living benefactor. Thirdly, in the case of posthumous retrieval, informed consent by the potential benefactor during their life is not ethically indispensable. Additionally, while refusal of posthumous retrieval expressed by a potential benefactor during their life must be respected, such a refusal needs ethical justification and explanation.

Effective optimization of living donor kidney transplantation activity ensuring adequate donor safety.

Results of kidney transplantation are excellent, but the number of patients on the waiting lists far exceeds the number of available organs. Living kidney donation must be considered as an important part of organ transplantation programmes. In the European Union countries, nearly 20% of all kidney transplants in 2010 were done with organs from living donors. However, the proportion of live donor kidney transplantation between EU countries varies greatly: from 3% to 54% of all kidney transplantations. Multiple initiatives have been undertaken in most of the European countries to increase the number of living donor kidney transplantations. In some countries widening of the donor pool has nearly reached the limits by accepting altruistic donors, paired and group exchanges, and even by performing live donor kidney transplantation in highly immunized recipients. There is a great need to optimize living donor kidney transplantation programmes by using a new strategy of: a. Detailed and adequate medical and psychosocial evaluation, ensuring that the need to increase programme activity will not overshadow the most important principle--donor safety. b. Total removal of all disincentives and financial obstacles that discourage potential donors, and provision of financial coverage for the follow-up. c. Sufficient detailed information about the option of living donor kidney transplantation, its results, and donor safety, delivered to relatives of patients with end-stage renal disease and to the patients themselves.